Update the template to require the use of 'weighted voting'

Hey there,

I’d like to propose that we update the template for proposals to require all future proposals to use the voting system ‘weighted voting’ (even for simple yes/no proposals). Weighted voting is what is currently used in the AavegotchiDAO Foundation election CoreProp.

Before I put this up on snapshot, I’d like to get the DAOs opinion on this.


  1. Using weighted voting, sub-DAOs like GotchiVault will be able to vote in a way that accurately reflects the outcomes of their sister proposals.

  2. People will be able to show slight preferences, or even indifference, by splitting their own votes; even on yes/no proposals.


  1. A more accurate reflection of VP.

  2. Lessen concerns about large sub-DAOs being able to determine a proposal’s outcome by themselves. For example, when GotchiVault does not split it’s vote, they basically pick the winning choice of any proposal that reaches a quorum of about 3M or more. By giving them the ability to fine-tune their VP to their sister-proposal’s results, there would be less concerns from DAO members about large sub-DAOs accumulating VP.


  1. Even if we require the use of weighted voting for all future proposals, we can’t force sub-DAOs to utilize it in a democratic way. They still might decide to put all their VP behind the winning choice of their sister proposal. While this is completely up to them, there is little downside for the DAO in giving them that choice (i.e. enabling them to split their votes more accurately).

  2. Weighted voting might seem unfamiliar at first. However, we’ve recently utilized this voting system for the AavegotchiDAO Foundation election, and I have yet to see any complaints about the system being too complicated for people to use. The way that snapshot implemented it, is very intuitive, so ‘weighted voting’ being unfamiliar seems to be a negligible concern.

  3. Could potentially increase uninformed voting. Having to make a choice is sometimes hard. Especially because snapshot allows anyone to check all your past votes. So one should feel a sense of responsibility when casting one’s vote. Using weighted voting we could see some people splitting their vote equally for all available choices. While this could reflect true indifference, it could also be a way for people to get XP while avoiding responsibility for any outcome. So no reason to read up on what’s going on, just split the vote and get XP.
    While this might seem like a valid concern, I don’t believe it is. There are always some uninformed people voting with their guts. People who care enough about their reputation to vote 50/50 to avoid responsibility for their choice (instead of just picking one of the options), but don’t care enough to read up on their choices and pick what they believe is the best option, are likely a negligible minority.


Not changing the template.

Related material:


Weighted voting:


I think this is really important to have. I support updating the template to require the use of the weighted voting option in Snapshot.


I totallly agree too. The potential downside you listed seems to be “potentials” downside only. But the benefits DAO and members could get out of this are huge…

1 Like

Id like to see both ranked and weighted supported. Both are better, for different situations. Ranked is ideal for option a, b, no, abstain type votes.

We should also update quorum rules as it onlt takes 2 people to reach quorum, and the rules are for singke choice.

Maybe it coukd be that for elections, its 30%, andvfor anything affecting tokenomics, 50% , with a run off if the top choices were within a range that is less than the total of the other choices

I thought so too, but there are multiple issues with that.

  1. Sub-DAOs would again not be able to accurately reflect their sister proposals outcomes.
  2. You can’t force the number of choices people need to submit in a ranked vote. So ranked vote can also always be used for single vote, making it a lot less useful.
  3. Someone who split their VP across many many wallets can always do weighted voting, even if ranked choice is forced. So by forcing weighted voting you give everyone the same ability.

AavegotchiDAO proposal:

GotchiVault proposal:

1 Like

Sure, weighted voting is better, but do we really need a vote on this? It’s not like someone couldn’t post a sigprop without using weighted voting. The template has never been fully enforced.

I heard from several people that they have been advocating for this for a long time, yet nothing changed. So I think we do need a vote, even if it’s just to spread awareness. Also with the tension lately, I thing it’s good for the health of the community to force proposal creators to give GotchiVault the opportunity to mirror their vote.

Actually, dan recently deleted a proposal for violating the template. Nothing wrong with enforcing the rules.

That said, I totally get your sentiment. Personally, I don’t think this needs a CoreProp, but that is not for me to decide.

Actually, dan recently deleted a proposal for violating the template. Nothing wrong with enforcing the rules.

Idk which one that is, but Yanik’s proposal definitely didn’t follow a traditional template and wasn’t deleted. I bet there were other reasons why any recent proposals were deleted.

so far the rule that is getting 100% enforcement, is “put a gotchi ID in”

We are, as of today, enforcing the CoC on discord, so… hopefully this means we now have actual standards and we enforce them, moving forward.

This thread, is an attempt to properly define those standards so they fit our situation.

The voting rules were defined in relation to single choice voting, but do not preclude the other types of voting. Single choice voting is actually toxic for our community due to centralization issues and the minimalist effort put into voting accuracy, by 3rd party smart contracts.

Weighted gives the smart contracts an option to deliver more accurate counts, so we should switch to that as a default. Getting the vote passed through automatically, so 3rd party custodial services do not need to hold their open votes, is where a bounty should be applied. It is ideal, but unknown if it is possible, so simply putting it out there as a bounty for some gigabrain to solve, is a perfect fit.

AFAIC there’s no need for a vote on this. If the Sigprop creator uses weighted voting, the Coreprop will also use weighted voting. Generally however the Sigprop is formatted, the Coreprop gets formatted, with occasional exceptions.

What we could do is add a frenly suggestion to the template that sigprop creators use weighted voting, to allow for maximum flexibility by delegates like the Vault.

We can add that today without any fuss.

Well, the proposal is about making it a requirement instead of merely a frenly suggestion. If we make it a frenly suggestion, there are still going to be proposals that are going to use a different voting system. That would bring us right back to square one on the never ending discussion about GotchiVault and their voting. Why continue to put everyone through this, if we could just require weighted voting on each proposal going forward (and enforce it like we do with the GotchiID)?